Permalink : http://hdl.handle.net/2115/49444

JaLCDOI : 10.14943/56174

KEYWORDS : regulatory science;GMO;uncertainty;science communication

Purpose of the paper is to elucidate various factors which lead to settlement of arguments among scientists in the context of regulatory science (safety assessment) using a case of a transgenic crop showing drought tolerance. The transgenic crop was regarded as a new type of GMO and posing scientific uncertainty. Novel assessment techniques (Omics) were proposed to use to assess the safety of the crop. While seemed promising at first, after discussing various aspects of the method, the GM Food Safety committee finally decided not to adopt the technique at that time. Minutes of the meeting of the Committee and interviews to related scientists were analyzed to understand the process to reach the conclusion. It is observed that the discussion among scientists has reached consensus through taking into account various kinds of knowledge, not only purely scientific but also institutional one, such as chronological consistency. Under the context of regulatory science, this latter type of knowledge (institutional knowledge) are accumulated within the committee and applied to the issue which constitutes a crucial factor to bring closure of the discussion. Science communication would need to take a harder look at this fairly neglected area, and foster the public to understand this aspect of science in action.